I'm not a passionate supporter of banning it but I can accpet it as its such a minor part of the game. Some musings to some of the points raised -
NFL comparison is irrelevant - The NFL dwarfs the NRL by virtually every measure but there are obvious similarities between the two ? certain amount of plays to get so far, having ball runners being tackled, many with shoulder charges. Unlike the NRL there have been large, long term studies done on the effects of repeated concussions in the NFL. There was a strong correlation with repeat concussions and FATAL brain diseases and suicides later in life. Not a 30% or 50% increase but 300-400% more likely.
Back in 2011 intentional helmet-to-helmet collision were banned. Not only this but defenseless players cannot be hit in the head or neck with the shoulder or forearm. A defenseless player includes passers, kickers, receivers without time to avoid contact, ball carrier whose progress stopped etc.
The research was concerning helmet-to-helmet contact. Furthermore, our rules already outlaw any hits to the head and neck. Banning shoulder-to-body hits is pointless and irrelevant.
So in summary:
- NFL studies effects of repeat concussions caused by helmet-to-helmet hits which is not relevant to rugby league.
- NFL has banned helmet-to-helmet hits (which are not relevant to rugby league)
- NFL has banned tackles to the head or neck area of 'defenceless' opponents - Rugby League bans tackles to head or neck area full stop.
- Nothing is relevant to shoulder-to-body contact which has now been banned.
Is there much difference between padded helmet-to-helmet collisions and non-padded head-to-shoulder collisions and far as trauma goes?
Irrelevant as high tackles are already against the rules of the game.
NFL still allows shoulder charges - Aside from a defenseless player, yes, the NFL still allows shoulder charges as a legitimate tackling technique. Would they, however, if there were no helmets or huge shoulder pads?
Actually they allow shoulder charges to a defenceless player as long as it doesn't strike the head or neck... You know, the same rules as rugby league previously.
Furthermore, their pads are made from firm plastics allowing them throw more force behind their hits. They actually believe it would be safer to remove helmets and soften up the pads because players wouldn't go in as hard. But don't let that distract you.
Summary:
- NFL allows shoulder charges that do not come into contact with the head or neck of a defenceless opponent. The NRL had this rules for ALL players.
What about other injuries? Do they not matter? - You can?t compare a knee injury, even a serious career ending one which could also be surgically corrected later, with a FATAL brain disease. There is a difference between injuries likely to inconvenience your life and those likely to kill you. It?s the reason spear tackles are banned. Has anyone died from a spear tackle in the NRL? No? Then why are they banned? You can?t even go beyond horizontal now. Risk mitigation, along with dangerous throws, tripping, crusher tackles etc.
Has there been any research to show that any player has died due to a legitimate rugby league shoulder charge or even significant brain damage? The only research was based on US studies which focused on a sport that allowed head and neck contact... Our sport does not.
As for your spear tackle example, the related action taken would have been to ban any tackle where an opponents feet leave the ground instead of 'past the horizontal'. If this were a fair example, a shoulder charge would be banned if it came in to contact with the head or neck of an opponent - WHICH IT ALREADY WAS.
Summary:
- No research has been done in Australia with our sport.
- Only research in the US focused on a sport that allowed head and neck contact - not comparable to a sport that bans all head and neck contact.
- Spear tackle ban is an irrelevant example unless all tackles where a players feet left the ground was banned.
Boxing/MMA is allowed - There is a difference in liability which rests with the insurance companies rather then the governing body. Generally speaking boxing club membership has a reasonably high premium component, which then skyrocket on the individual for pro fights, as well as ironclad waivers. And as others have said the whole raison d?etre is taking head shots. No one plays league for that.
The reason their premiums are so high is because of the focus of the sport. But that does not mean the risk of head injuries don't exist already in Rugby League. Banning the shoulder charge and you still have a risk of head injuries. Head and neck tackles have always been outside the laws of the game but have always been a risk. Players are aware of this.
However, the reason that this argument was ever used was because of posters like kmav saying 'workplace laws'.
Summary:
- Head injuries have always been a risk associated with Rugby League, Rugby Union, and AFL.
- This risk will still be there even after the shoulder charge is banned.
- Head and neck contact was ALWAYS outside of the law of the game.
- Argument was used in response to people raising employer responsibilities in workplace law.
More concussions come from the knee/hip - The onus here is on the defender?s technique. Accidents will always happen with tackles gone wrong but the big difference is intent. A defender doesn?t go into the tackle trying to inflict concussion on himself, but rather the ball carrier. Maybe concussion is not the intent but trying to whack the guy as hard as possible with the shoulder and knowing that concussion is a distinct possibility. The ball carrier doesn?t have much of a say, unlike the tackler.
But if the key concern is safety of players as has previously been mentioned this point is irrelevant. In addition to this, you maintain that defenders are going in trying to inflict concussion on the ball carrier - yet will this change? No. Players are concussed with how they fall on the ground.
Summary:
- If the point of the banning is player safety, we must also ban leg tackles that risk player safety.
- Concussion will still occur through other tackles.
The Jarrod McCraken incident players were sued, not the NRL - Only because spear tackles were contrary to the rules and deemed foul play.
It is deemed foul play. Just like every tackle that hit the neck and head were already deemed foul play. All the evidence you referenced from the US looked at head and neck tackles which were already banned in Rugby League.
Furthermore, as mentioned previously, the banning of the shoulder charge in general is akin to banning any tackle where the ball carrier's feet leave the ground in order to prevent spear tackles.
Summary:
- Head and neck hits are already foul play that has seen players suspended.
- The spear tackle to be relevant to banning the shoulder charge would see all tackles where the ball carriers feet leave the ground to be banned.
All 16 doctors supported the proposal. Not a single dissenting voice. Not one. To suggest the ARLC then ignore it is non-sensical. There would?ve been an injunction before the season starts by some medical body or safety advocate now the word is out.
The problem is that you support their argument simply because of their title rather than your argument. They have used unrelated research from the US which I have debunked above.
Furthermore, these are the same doctors that will needle players injuries to ensure they can play, risking further permanent injury, and also frequently bend concussion rules.
Summary:
- Their argument is based on irrelevant research from the US which does not have a comparable context.
- These doctors also frequently bend rules putting players at risk of permanent injury (concussion rules, needling injuries, etc.)
(NLF) Commissioner Roger Goodell spoke at the Harvard School of Public Health, where he trumpeted the league?s efforts to increase the safety of its players and proclaimed that ?medical decisions override everything else.?
US context is irrelevant still. Furthermore, you mean the Commissioner of a sporting body that banned a tackle was talking up the rule change? Never! The context is completely different again, with the NFL outlawing head and neck strikes of defenceless opponents (NRL already outlawed all head and neck contact) and helmet-to-helmet contact (which is irrelevant).
What makes it even more silly is that Junior Football games allowed these sort of hits so the damage was happening through a child's brain development - shoulder charges are banned in Junior Rugby League matches (and that was for bone structural reasons).
Summary:
- Sporting body commissioner talking up their rule change - who would have thought?!
- NFL had medical research directly related to their sport - we have not.
- American Football allowed helmet-to-helmet contact throughout the junior games meaning strikes the head of a developing brain were allowed - unsurprisingly 30 years of repeated head hits causes damage.
- Junior League already bans shoulder charges, as well as tackles above the armpits. This is to protect a childs developing bone and brain structure.
Thousands of ex-players are suing the NFL. Compensation may still be sought from the NRL as well in future but if they didn?t draw a line in the sand, in light of the club doctors support, it would be open season, potentially bankrupting the game.
Three retired NFL players received at least $2 million in disability payments as a result of brain trauma injuries from their playing days, according to an article by ESPN and the PBS series ?Frontline.?
The payments were made in the 1990s and early 2000s by the Bell/Rozelle NFL Player Retirement Plan, a committee comprising representatives of the owners, players and NFL commissioner.
The NFL actually suppressed research that had been conducted and it was this act that the league were found guilty. The US legal system is quite different to Australia's so it is irrelevant to suggest because this happened in the US it would happen in Australia.
Furthermore, the Bell/Rozelle NFL Retirement Plan only pays out to those who have been confirmed to be disabled by the US Social Security system. Are you aware of any former players that are receiving medical pensions due to head injuries sustained in Rugby League. I know a few that have because of knee injuries.
Summary:
- The US Legal context is vastly different to the Australian system, as can be witnessed by the abundant frivolous lawsuits in the States.
- The key point of NFL Responsibility was their suppression of medical evidence. The NRL has no medical evidence that is directly related to our sport.
- The NFL Retirement plan pays out to those former players who receive social security disability payments due to damage caused during their career.
